Words, as every one knows, ‘mean’ nothing by themselves although
the belief that they did…was once equally universal. It is only when a thinker
makes use of them that they stand for anything, or, in one sense, have ‘meaning.’[1]
Donald Davidson: An utterance
can no doubt be interpreted by a correct theory, but if the problem is to
determine when an interpretation is correct, it is no help to support the
theory that yields it by giving samples of correct interpretations. There is an
apparent impasse; we need the theory before we can recognize the evidence on
its behalf.[2]
Biblical interpretation has
generally been dominated by religious interests. Not all these, however, are
theological. That category embraces different levels of sophistication, but
properly refers to the intellectual process of articulating a religious belief
and practice by relating an authoritative religious tradition to contemporary
knowledge and experience, and vice versa.[3]
Premodern hermeneutics recognized
clearly that a self-understanding requires a careful balance of self-knowledge
with a transcendent source of knowledge. Without one eye on the interpreter’s
human nature and another on the transcendent structures that make interpretation
possible, genuine reciprocity in interpretation soon collapses into
subjectivism, no matter how much we insist on reason as a universal measure for
truth.[4]
A doctrine of Scripture is therefore
right to conceive of the Bible as God’s mighty speech acts: “not merely as the
record of the redemptive acts by which God is saving the world, but as itself
one of these redemptive acts, having its own part to play in the great work of
establishing and building up the kingdom of God.”[5]
On the surface, grammatical
constructions, such as the context of a passage and the viewpoint from which it
was written, play important roles. But on a deeper level, understanding depends
not on technical rules but on a relation to the divine, namely, the communion
with Christ.[6]
We turn away decisively from
ourselves and our time to what was found in the men through whom the church
came into being. Out main interest should be the thought as it was conceived by
them and the truth that was valid for them.[7]
Since nothing is being replaced
from a covenantal standpoint, then the answer is yes, the term ‘replacement
theology’ should be replaced with something more precise. As soon as Adam rebelled,
God’s decretive purpose in election began. He chose Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses,
and David. From within the natural offspring of Abraham, there would always
exist a true offspring to whom the promise belonged. This offspring would come
to be counted as the sands of the sea and the stars of the heaven. There would
be a proliferation of this offspring in what is also known as the elect.
The question with which
dispensationalists and others are dealing is a question of theological
hermeneutics. After all, hermeneutics apart from theology is impossible. And
theology without hermeneutics isn’t theology. The two fields are interdependent
on one another. There is a forest before us. There are two ways to approach,
and explore the forest. The first is to enter the forest on foot. With this
approach you trudge through thickets, briars, weeds, up and down ravines,
across rivers and creeks. But the overall landscape of the forest, how it
connects one mountain with another, one stream with another, is missed. Another
way to enter the forest is from above. In this approach you can see how
everything connects. There is a sense of order and beauty that is quite
different from the other approach. I believe the dispensationalist walks into
the forest of Scripture and fixates on a tree, a stream, a field and because he
does so, he misses the forest for the trees. The best way to explore the forest
is to get a birds-eye view first and then to let down and set off on foot. The
advantages of such a synergistic approach are immeasurable.
We rarely read the Bible to
discover truth; more often, we wish to harmonize it with our belief system and
see its meaning in light of our preconceived theological system.[8]
This is a problem with which every student of Scripture must struggle. This has
been the case from the very beginning of written communication. So where does
one begin? Every hermeneutic text worth its salt tells us that context
determines meaning more than any other single factor in the interpretive
project.
It is only
human nature for any person receiving and conveying important traditions to
view them from the perspective that most clearly makes sense in the context of
that person’s particular religious, cultural, social, economic, and intellectual
milieu, which often will not be the same as the milieu presumed earlier by the
person or group that created or previously transmitted the tradition(s).[9]
There are two fundamental points
that are necessary to a biblically faithful theology of hermeneutics. The first
is a theology of Scripture (birds-eye view) and the second is a proper exegesis
(setting off on foot). Both of these are essential ingredients to the
interpretive process. We begin with one’s view of the Bible. What is the Bible?
We look at the sacred Scripture as a whole. That is to say, we begin with the
Bible as God’s revelation as a whole. Everything else within the text is
interpreted through our view of the nature of Scripture and what God is doing.
Why does the Bible exist? What is the Bible really doing? Galatians apart from
the rest of Scripture is hardly intelligible. So it is with any other piece of
Scripture. The quilt of Scripture is intended to remain stitched together. What
jigsaw puzzle is discernible until it is put together. Take one piece at time
it seems fit for nothing. But when it is pieced together as intended, the scene
can often be quite moving.
Charles Hill writes, “Yet it would
be correct to say that the church received its conception of Scripture from
Scripture itself, and from Jesus and his apostles in what soon become a new
body of Scripture.”[10] The
nature of Christian belief itself requires a self-attesting,
self-authenticating, and self-interpreting Scripture. Nothing less will do.
This is the nature of the Christian Text. From Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21,
God is doing something very specific. And the goal of hermeneutics is to
understand what God is doing so that we might be what God has intended us to be
through the work He is doing in Scripture.
Immediately after the fall, God
promises redemption. He proclaims the gospel to the first family in Genesis
3:15. This is the gospel of grace! In Revelation 22:21, John writes, The
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Divine favor can only be
extended if divine wrath has been turned aside. And divine wrath can only be
turned aside if divine justice has been satisfied. Revelation 22:21 ends where
Genesis 3:15 began: The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the context of
the Bible. To be sure, the Bible is really about God revealing Himself to
humanity through the story of the gospel of redemption in order to display his
glory and to be glorified by all his creation. The doxological purpose is
accomplished through the gospel of Jesus Christ and the redemption of God’s
elect. That is what the Bible is all about. To be sure, there are many trees in
this forest but none of them ought to distract us from the overall beauty of
the forest itself.
The basic problem that I see in
the dispensationalist’s insistence that there is a literal kingdom-type future
for national Israel is located in its hermeneutic; a hermeneutic that is driven
primarily by intense theological and philosophical commitments. I have said
that the GHM is a necessary condition for understanding the biblical text on
several occasions. However, I have also said that this method nor any other
single method is sufficient for understanding it. In all of my good friend’s
remarks on the subject of replacement theology I have discerned what
Vern Poythress calls the elimination of the divine author. Henebury et
al seem all too eager to pay close attention to the human author while ignoring
the possibility that the divine author has more on his mind in a particular
text than they care to admit. However, if we approach the Scripture for what it
is, in its proper context, the context of the whole, we are in a much better
position to benefit from its content and to experience both the human and the
divine author’s intention.
It seems to me that the NT
authors employed numerous tactics in how they read the OT. Certainly they
cannot be said to have been faithful to the GHM in any sense of how we
understand that method. Midrashic exegesis, typology and pesher patterns are
utilized by the New Testament writers and permeate the pages of the New
Testament.[11]
This is hardly news to anyone who takes biblical hermeneutics seriously.
Because of the complexities this tends to introduce to modern readers,
appropriate caution is in order. Let the reader not just beware, but let him be
aware!
There is a significant role for
biblical theology to play in hermeneutics. Biblical theology looks for the
relationship between the truths uncovered in the exegetical process and the
larger truths that serve to underpin the movement of God’s progressive
revelation. In this way, biblical theology plays a regulative role in the
process of exegesis.[12]
This brings us back to the principle that Scripture is self-interpreting. In
his article, Henebury continues to come back to God’s original communication to
an original audience. Silva observes, “On the other hand, the effort must be
made to discover whether God has revealed basic principles that are applicable
to our understanding of what language is and how it works.”[13]
After all, can it be shown that the NT authors are also guilty of violating the
rules of the GHM? I think there is no question that this is easily
demonstrated.
The issue with which this whole replacement
theology matter is concerned is really how the NT writers interpret the OT
revelation. The divine author very often, even typically, had a deeper meaning
than the human author involved in the revelation with which the human author had
to do. This deeper meaning was not understood by the human authors of the Old
Testament but is clearly understood when seen in the light of the further
revelation of the New Testament.[14]
To be fair to Henebury et al then, one might say that replacement theology
could be appropriate if we eliminate the divine author, but not so if we
consider Him. This would mean that replacement theology is an appropriate
concept prior to the completion of New Testament revelation, but not so much
after the fact. Rather than a deeper meaning, we may be better off referring to
this phenomenon as typology.
For example, in Hosea 11:1 we
read the following: When
Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
Would anyone at the time of this writing, including the human author, dispute
that this text is referring to the Exodus? Clearly not! But somehow, Matthew
connected this passage to Christ. Matt. 2:15 and remained
there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by
the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.” And then again we see Matt. 2:18
linked to Jer. 31:15. Clearly, Jeremiah was talking about the exile of the
Northern Kingdom. Rachel was an ancestress of the northern tribes of Ephraim
and Manneseh, as well as of Benjamin in the south. Ramah was a town five miles
north of Jerusalem, the very place where exiles were gathered before
deportation to Babylon. Now, Matthew takes this text and says that Herod’s
actions were in fulfillment of Jer. 31:15. There is no sense in which the
Hebrew audience would have understood this text this way. We have no choice but
to conclude that the original Hebrew audience would not have read Hosea’s
reference to the exodus nor Jeremiah’s reference to the exile the way that
Matthew read it. Therefore, Henebury’s rule regarding how the original audience
would have understood something seems dubious at best. The point is that they
did understand the text from one standpoint, but they did not understand it in
the larger theological context of which it appeared.
What are we to conclude so far? I
think it is safe to say that if one eliminates the divine author from the scene
and if one ignores the Jewish methods employed by the NT writers to interpret
the OT, we can say that it is appropriate to use the term replacement
theology with respect to national Israel as she relates to the overarching program of
the redemptive plan. In that sense, it would appear as if the NT Church has
replaced national Israel as God’s covenant people. However, if Matthew can
apply the exodus event to Christ as a babe being called out of Egypt, and if he
can apply the exile to Herod’s murderous expedition in search of the new King,
surely Paul was not off base when he interpreted the covenants and the promises
to be intended for a true, faithful Israel rather than the national entity. If
this is true, it would seem to me that the concept of replacement theology is
constructed on only a partial understanding of the voices we hear in the OT.
And that is only true when we ignore the clearer voices of their NT colleagues.
[1] C K. Ogden and I A. Richards, The
Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language Upon Thought and of the
Science of Symbolism (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, ©1989),
9-10.
[2] Aloysius Martinich, ed., The
Philosophy of Language, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008),
577.
[3] John Barton, ed., The Cambridge
Companion to Biblical Interpretation, Cambridge Companions to Religion
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 114.
[4] Jens Zimmermann, Recovering
Theological Hermeneutics: An Incarnational-Trinitarian Theory of Interpretation (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, ©2004), 29.
[5] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology:
God, Scripture and Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity
Press, ©2002), 158.
[6] Jens Zimmermann, Recovering
Theological Hermeneutics: An Incarnational-Trinitarian Theory of Interpretation (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, ©2004), 84.
[7] Andreas J. Köstenberger and Richard Duane
Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the
Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology, Invitation to
Theological Studies Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2011), 694.
[8] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical
Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 2nd ed.
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, ©2006), 29.
[9] Hauser, Alan J., and Duane Frederick Watson,
eds. A History of Biblical Interpretation. 4 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
William B. Eerdmans Pub., ©2003- 2009, 2.
[10] D A. Carson, ed., The Enduring
Authority of the Christian Scriptures (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016), 44.
[11] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical
Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 2nd ed.
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, ©2006), 343.
[12] Ibid., 350-1
[13] Mosés Silva, Foundations of
Contemporary Interpretation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub.
House, ©1996), 205.
[14] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical
Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 2nd ed.
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, ©2006), 328-9.
